Over to the President

It is unlikely that any President before has left as deep a mark
on the polity in so little a time as the incumbent of Rashtrapati
Bhavan.

Months into his new role, K R Narayanan served notice that he
was no pushover, that he did not think of the Presidency as a
sinecure, and that there was no way he would merely sign along
the dotted line, when he returned the Union Cabinet's decision
to impose central rule in Uttar Pradesh after the calamitous vote
of trust in the BJP's favour.

Any self-respecting government
would have resigned at this travesty of fairplay that the President's
rebuff highlighted, but then no one believed that the United front
was a paragon of anything barring, maybe, ridiculous anti-BJPism.

Recently Narayanan also became the first President since the Republic's
inception to have cast his vote, clearly indicating that he meant
to keep his personal life and the onerous constitutional obligations
imposed on him separate. When his predecessors abstained from
casting their vote, they sent out the message that they meant
themselves to be seen as above preferring any one party or individual. In
the turbulent times we live in, Narayanan has made it clear that
his rights and duties as citizen transcended his official function,
even if the rest don't believe in his impartiality merely because
he has exercised his preference for a party.

Critics of his decision to exercise his franchise, obviously,
believe that no other constitutional authority should cast his
or her vote; that journalists too should not vote. And when you
extend this list to include judges and Election Commission officials,
the ridiculousness of the argument is apparent.

Perhaps rankled by Narayanan's decision to cast his vote, someone
as senior in the political pecking order as Harkishan Singh Surjeet
went as far as to question his criticism of the egregious Uttar
Pradesh governor, a criticism that the nation shares in. By voicing
his reservations about the President's views, Surjeet has exposed
his hypocrisy.

Don't forget, in his haste to criticise the President, Surjeet
has joined the side of Bhandari and Co -- in whose fairness the Left
Front had no confidence earlier, when Bhandari was governor
of Marxist-ruled Tripura. Obviously, Surjeet believes that an
injustice loses its inequity if perpetrated against the BJP, or
the 'communal forces.'

Thankfully, the President and the judiciary do not see issues
in such stark black and white. Fortunately, by making allowances
for the large grey area, the rule of law has triumphed, as evidenced
by Jagdambika Pal's humiliation on Thursday -- unless, of course,
it is anyone's case that every single authority in the country
has been infiltrated by the saffron brigade, including Rashtrapati
Bhavan.

The President's impartiality is going to be tested as never before
next week, when the results of the 12th general election
are announced. It is more or less certain at this late hour that
the electorate remains confused about voting for one single party
or group, and is determined to make the President earn his salary.

It is also certain that the same anti-BJP refrain heard nearly
two years ago will surface next week, with individuals with a
questionable past jostle and shove to cobble together a patchwork
of political parties, disparate in their ideology but brought
together by the lure of power and the fear of the BJP.

And the authority for determining whether such an obviously fragile
arrangement can continue to lead the nation at such a crucial
junction in its history, rests with the President.

Who, if the recent past is any indication, is not going to get
taken is merely by the numbers theory. Going by his record, he is not going to agree to any inherently weak bloc ascending the
throne in New Delhi without satisfying himself about its shock
absorbing capacity, over its internal grievance redress mechanism,
and, of course, the strength of its commitment to stick together
under adverse circumstances.

Perhaps the President may even question the logic of a United
Front-Congress pact, given that it is this very combination that
put the nation through an expensive election. The illogic of the
situation is apparent to a layman, and surely the President is
endowed with far greater intelligence to discern it.

But one thing is sure: whichever way the political wind blows,
there are going to be eyebrows raised at the President's future
course of action. Whatever decision he takes, it is not going
to satisfy everyone. If people as venerable as Surjeet can question
the President's wisdom over the Uttar Pradesh drama, even smaller
fries will not now hesitate to ventilate their views about the
post-election reality.

Which raises the question if an active President is a risk to
the smooth functioning of democracy. Yes, and no.

A President with an unfinished agenda, a President with a grouse
against the government of the day, a President with inherent megalomania
that believes the government exists at his pleasure, like
what prevailed during the Rajiv Gandhi regime, is ruinous for
the polity. The President in effect is meant to serve as a guiding
spirit, who cautions and counsels whenever the government has
strayed from the straight and narrow -- as it has repeatedly done
in the case of Uttar Pradesh.

And his role during the government formation has altered if only
slightly. When the nation went though stable times, there was
nothing much for him to do but go by the numbers, which were loud
and clear anyway. In times of an unstable polity, as we have been
experiencing since 1989, the President has not merely to satisfy
himself about the numbers, but also the stability and durability
of the arrangement that he will pitchforking into the centrestage.
Surely, it is no one's contention that his is a case of duty alone
-- to verify the numbers -- and not responsibility -- to satisfy himself
of the viability of the numbers?

This President has so far not hesitated to take the bull by the
horns. Hopefully, next week, the nation will not be given a chance
to review this opinion.